On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
If you really
doubt that the person themselves is sending you a
correction,
then fine. But that's only good if you really have some reason to doubt
it's
them. Saying "what if it isn't them" and then stretching it to cover all
situations whether you believe it's them or not is just elevating process
above people.>>
-----------------------------
Or it's the correct approach.
Not believing random strangers is very good for Wikipedia and children as
well.
The fact that we tell it to children should be a sign that it's wrong. We
often give children broad rules because children can't make judgment calls.
The fact that rules are used as a substitute for judgment calls is one of
the big problems with Wikipedia, both in BLP and outside it.
Someone who claims to be a person who isn't Newsweek-level famous, and corrects
a fact about themselves that's noncontroversial, probably is them. Even if
you doubt it's them, there are other factors which make it more likely;
for instance, if the person is known to be on the Internet already. Or if he
corrects the fact in some online location that Wikipedia doesn't accept as a
source.